05-10-2012, 07:17 PM
It really comes down to what you want to do. I've seen the 70-200/4 lenses as the poor man's f/2.8. Messing around fitting extenders in the field gets boring rapidly. If you need 300mm, get the 70-300L. If you need 200mm at f/4 and hardly ever need longer, then the 70-200 might suffice.
The 70-300L isn't much different in weight from 70-200/4 IS + 1.4x extender at 1050g and 760+225=985g respectively. The 70-300L is a lot shorter which makes it potentially easier to pack too. At least for my bags I run out of length long before I run out of width as the 70-300L is slightly fatter but a lot shorter, and the difference will only increase if you fit an extender.
The 70-300L isn't much different in weight from 70-200/4 IS + 1.4x extender at 1050g and 760+225=985g respectively. The 70-300L is a lot shorter which makes it potentially easier to pack too. At least for my bags I run out of length long before I run out of width as the 70-300L is slightly fatter but a lot shorter, and the difference will only increase if you fit an extender.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.